Biology Riddles

penguins

no penguins north of equator because of phylogenetic and biogeographical history, plus, the warm water barrier spearating north and south poles, although, there are historical reports of penguins crossing the equator and (in the west Atlantic) getting as far north as New England

good one bringing up auks, however any penguin-like characterisitics are due to convergence
 
Convergence refers to the widespread tendency in nature of unrelated organisms to possess nearly identical anatomical and physiological characteristics.{1} The wings of birds and bats is one textbook example of convergence. Birds and bats are unrelated organisms, with birds belonging to the class Aves and bats to the class Mammalia. Though superficially similar, the wing structures of birds and bats are fundamentally different. Another common example of convergence, one in which the fundamental structural differences are not so obvious, is the remarkable anatomical similarity shared by the modern placental wolf and the extinct Tasmanian wolf.{2}

{1}Monroe W. Strickberger, Evolution, 3d ed., (Sunberg, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2000), 632; 637.

{2}Mark Ridley, Evolution, 2d ed. (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Science, 1996), 470-72.

why thank you paul
however, what do we actually know about the auk anatomy?
btw, convergence appears to be used as an creationist argument;)
 
Back to the original question

Originally posted by Neuromancer
yes but how is a nucler power plant conected to warmer water?
Click to expand...

A nuclear reactor uses water as a coolant. Water from an adjacent body is regularly used. The water goes back to the environment a few degrees warmer.
 
Last edited:
Re: reptiles

Originally posted by paulsamuel
birds are dinosaurs, dinosaurs are reptiles, hence, birds are reptiles
Click to expand...
Birds are reptiles in the same way mammals are reptiles, in other words; not anymore.
Mammals changed more ofcourse, but birds too became their own thing.
Bats seem likely to create a whole new category in the future after further evolution.
They will then be akin to what birds are to reptiles.

Also I did not think the similarities between the placental wolf and tasmanian tiger were a case of convergence, I thought they shared a common ancestor.
I thought marsupials were the base from which all mammals evolved. And so assumed it was a similar case of reptiles branching out to make birds and mammals, so the tree gliding lizard eventually lead to birds, the warm blooded reptile with parental instincts lead to mammals, the marsupial possum lead to lemurs, the marsupial wolf lead to at least a wolflike creature that evuntually lead to wolves etc.
But then would this require a convergence in regard to becoming placental?
Which would actually be far more remarkable:confused:
 
Unfortunately, I've got jack. Anyone else want to step up and be the man I've failed to be?
 
Last edited:
And Idle Mind, we're composed by protozoans........ lol... think of our cells....
Okay shoot me... hHAhA
 
Here's a riddle. How is it documented in fossil records that bees were around 100 million years before flowered plants?
 
More like:

The fossils unearthed by Dr. Demko are much much older. If further studies confirm that they were made by ancient bees (unfortunately, these are ichnofossils or trace fossils showing only nests but no actual bee fossils). The oldest wasp body fossils date to about 116 million years ago, the oldest bee fossils at about 80 million and the oldest described wasp nest at about 75 million. The angiosperms, or flowering plants, are known from fossils from 110 to 120 million years ago although they may have evolved somewhat earlier. Their origin was called an "abominable mystery" by Charles Darwin in the 19th century and modern biologists are still largely in the dark about the exact origin and age of flowering plants. Now we are faced with the fact that bees may have been buzzing around a whopping 140 million years earlier! If there were no angiosperms around then, which seems likely, then the early bees or protobees probably survived on sweet exudates from non-flowering plants and pollen and spores from ferns, cycads and other ancient plants. The complex multi-chambered (individual nest cells) fossil nests found at the Petrified Forest indicate that these bees may have even been social, since the nest architecture seems reminiscent of the type of nests made by modern ground-nesting sweat bees (in the family Halictidae). Each nest consists of clusters of 15 to 30 cells shaped like little flasks or urns and each about one inch long. Most of the nests seem to have gained entry to the tree through open knotholes and were made while the tree was alive, since the team found "reaction wood" to be present. Further, the nests are found high in the top one third of the trees within what would have been the canopy region.

Source: http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov/nx/fossils/fossils.html
 
Originally posted by spookz

however, what do we actually know about the auk anatomy?
btw, convergence appears to be used as an creationist argument;)
Click to expand...
there are extant auks, aren't there?, i.e. the lesser auk.

convergence is a phenomenon of evolution
 
Re: Re: reptiles

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
Birds are reptiles in the same way mammals are reptiles, in other words; not anymore.
Click to expand...
not exactly, which is why i made the point. mammals, birds and reptiles are three different classes of vertebrates, and because birds are paraphyletic relative to reptiles, it has been suggested that birds are just modified reptiles (i.e. they belong in the Class Reptilia).

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
Also I did not think the similarities between the placental wolf and tasmanian tiger were a case of convergence, I thought they shared a common ancestor.
Click to expand...

All living organisms have a shared common ancestor, but there are still convergent characters. The carnivoran (I mean this in the literal sense, not the taxonomic sense) characters found in the Tasmanian wolf (and the Tasmanian devil for that matter, both modified kangaroos) are convergent, i.e. they evolved separately and independently of carnivoran (meant in the taxonomic sense, not the literal sense) characters.

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
I thought marsupials were the base from which all mammals evolved. And so assumed it was a similar case of reptiles branching out to make birds and mammals, so the tree gliding lizard eventually lead to birds, the warm blooded reptile with parental instincts lead to mammals, the marsupial possum lead to lemurs, the marsupial wolf lead to at least a wolflike creature that evuntually lead to wolves etc.
But then would this require a convergence in regard to becoming placental?
Which would actually be far more remarkable:confused:
Click to expand...
not to worry; you're in a safe place. remember, evolution is not directional. all extant marsupials are as evolved as all other mammals (the placentals and monotremes). I can't draw a tree here, but see this tree ====>>>

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/V/Vertebrates.html

There are much better trees in any evolution book, but the point is that if alligators and dinosaurs are reptiles, then birds are too.

Finally, species are not convergent, characters (adaptations) are.
 
Yeah, I started writing it before you posted... sorry

So it's a marine creature, probably a predator of jellyfish or other marine invertebrates, and it has combs but no stinging tentacles... and you want to know if it's related to other things that look like it or not.

That's gonna be a toughie.

Is it a <a href="http://www.mbayaq.org/efc/living_species/default.asp?hOri=1&inhab=453">comb jelly</a>?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top